1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to the transport of bicycles on motor vehicles, specifically to the mounting of a bicycle carrier on the front of a truck, van, or SUV (sport utility vehicle).
2. Description of Prior Art
Transportation planners increasingly emphasize the utility of a multi-modal transportation system that efficiently connects forms of human conveyance such as walking, bicycles, automobiles, buses, trains, and aircraft. One of the more popular connections in this system has been the bicycle and the motor vehicle. Many creative ideas have been advanced for mounting bicycles on vehicles such that they can be carried and used as an alternate form of transportation for work or recreation. These ideas, for the most part, specify devices for mounting bicycles in one of two locations: vehicle rear and vehicle roof Each of these locations poses a set of unique and significant problems.
Rear-Mounted Bicycle Carriers
Inventors have created a number of different concepts for carrying bicycles on the rear of vehicles. There are designs for carriers that attach to the rear trunk cover, hatchback, or tailgate (for example: U.S. Pat. No. 5,065,921 to Mobley, 1991; U.S. Pat. No. 4,290,540 to Allen, 1985; U.S. Pat. No. 5,056,700 to Blackburn and Lee, 1991; U.S. Pat. No. 4,085,874 to Graber, 1978; and U.S. Pat. No. 3,901,421 to Kalicki & Jalovec). There are designs that attach to the trunk and rear bumper (for example: U.S. Pat. No. 5,752,640 to Proulx, 1998; U.S. Pat. No. 5,628,440 to Gallazzini, 1997; U.S. Pat. No. 5,230,449 to Collis & Cass, 1993; U.S. Pat. No. 5,215,233 to Baldeck, 1993; U.S. Pat. No. 5,118,018 to Baldeck, 1992; U.S. Pat. No. 4,863,080 to Graber, 1989; U.S. Pat. No. 4,709,840 to Allen, 1985; U.S. Pat. No. 4,997,116 to Grim, 1991; U.S. Pat. No. 4,298,151 to O'Connor, 1981; U.S. Pat. No. 3,923,221 to Ballinger, 1975; and U.S. Pat. No. 3,927,811 to Nussbaum, 1975). There are designs that attach to the rear bumper (for example U.S. Pat. No. 5,810,231 to Kravitz, 1997, U.S. Pat. No. 4,318,501 to Graber, 1982; U.S. Pat. No. 3,891,132 to Chandler, 1973; U.S. Pat. No. 4,411,461 to Rosenburg, 1983; U.S. Pat. No. 3,841,544 to Berger, 1974; U.S. Pat. No. 2,432,732 to Del Cano, 1947; French Patent 2,437,323 to Hamel et al, 1978; U.S. Pat. No. 3,765,581 to Kosecoff, 1973; and U.S. Pat. No. 3,225,986 to Anderson, 1965). There are designs that attach to a trailer hitch (for example: U.S. Pat. No. 5,803,330 to Stack et al, 1998; U.S. Pat. No. 5,526,971 to Despain, 1996; U.S. Pat. No. 5,476,203 to Fletcher, 1975; U.S. Pat. No. 5,373,978 to Buttchen et al, 1994; U.S. Pat. No. 5,244,133 to Abbott et al, 1993; United Kingdom Patent 2,235,909 to Masurei 1991; German Patent DE 3,900,569 to Gaaloul, 1990; and U.S. Pat. No. 4,856,686 to Workentine, 1989. There are designs that attach to a rear mounted tire (for example: U.S. Pat. No. 5,228,606 to Hickson, 1991). And finally, there are designs that attach to vehicle frame and body (for example U.S. Pat. No. 4,676,413 to Began et al, 1987). All of these rear-mounted designs have one glaring problem in common--they impede or prevent entry to the trunk or rear cargo area of the vehicle. People are required to remove the bicycles from the carrier (and in many cases, the carrier from the vehicle) to access luggage, camping gear, recreational equipment, or other items stored in rear area of the vehicle. This disadvantage is particularly frustrating when bicycles are transported for extended camping or touring trips.
Further problems of convenience, complexity, and safety are evident for certain of the attachment concepts. Carriers that attach to the trunk cover require more than one person to lift a bicycle into place. Carriers that attach to trunk cover and rear bumper require, in many cases, an overly complex multiplicity of straps and pads for carrier mounting. Carriers that attach to a trailer hitch deny use of the hitch for its intended purpose and are relatively unstable because of single point mounting. In addition, trailer hitch carriers create a notable safety hazard because of their excessive rearward extension.
Roof-Mounted Bicycle Carriers
Many ideas have also been patented for carrying bicycles on the roof of a vehicle. Most of these devices include provisions for mounting a bicycle carrier on the roof drip molding or an existing roof rack (for example: U.S. Pat. No. 5,820,002 to Allen, 1998 and U.S. Pat. No. 4,524,893 to Cole, 1991). A variation of this idea includes mounting attachments on both roof and vehicle trunk (for example: U.S. Pat. No. 5,476,201 to Hall et al). Roof-mounted bicycle carriers pose two significant disadvantages. The first is accessibility. It is very cumbersome and difficult to lift, position, and secure a roof-mounted bicycle. The second is height. Bicycles carried in the upright position create a troublesome and possibly unsafe vehicle height extension. Both problems are particularly significant when bicycles are roof-mounted on normally high-standing trucks, vans and SUVs (sport utility vehicles).
Frame-Mounted Bicycle Carriers
Mounting of a bicycle carrier directly to the frame of a vehicle has likewise been considered in the art (for example: U.S. Patent to Began, 1987). Many bumpers on modern day vehicles do not provide a suitable mounting surface because they are constructed of molded polymers (plastics) for energy absorption in the event of a crash. Furthermore, many bumpers do not allow a means for attachment because of their integration into the body contours of the vehicle. This problem has been somewhat overcome with a vehicle that presents a trailer hitch or trailer hitch receiver. But, trailer hitch mounting is only available on the rear of a vehicle, and pose the rather significant disadvantages discussed above. Other attempts at frame-mounting (see above citation) limit application to vehicle rear and ignore the design challenges posed by these newer molded bumpers.
Bicycle Support Arms
Many of the inventions considered above specify extension members for supporting the bicycle. Extensions are called by various names including arm portions, horizontal members, otter holders, engaging arms, hanger rods, support arms, hanger assemblies, carrying members, brackets, etc. These extensions can pose a serious safety problem because of protruding sharp edges and tips. These members, when not in use, project from the rear of the vehicle in a menacing and dangerous fashion. Although some inventions (for example: U.S. Pat. No. 4,997,116 to Grim, 1991 and U.S. Pat. No. 4,856,686 to Workentine, 1989) allow provisions for rotating the bicycle support members out of harms way, most are permanently affixed with little concern for the hazard they present.
Front-Mounted Bicycle Carriers
The possibility of a front-mounted bicycle carrier is anticipated in patent art. Although most bicycle carrier inventions clearly specify mounting on either the rear or roof of a vehicle, some rear-mounted designs allow for possible adaptation to the front of a vehicle (for example: U.S. Pat. No. 5,752,640 to Proulx, 1998; U.S. Pat. No. 5,215,233 to Baldeck, 1993; U.S. Pat. No. 4,452,385 to Prosen, 1982; U.S. Pat. No. 4,298,151 to O'connor, 1981; U.S. Pat. No. 3,923,221 to Ballinger, 1974, and U.S. Pat. No. 3,225,986 to Anderson, 1965). A review of these patents will confirm that these designs are clearly intended for rear-mounting only, and that any attempt to apply these systems to the front of a motor vehicle would prove impractical because of the methods for carrier mounting and obstruction to driver visibility. A further, but awkward, possibility is the combination of a spare tire mounting rack (see U.S. Pat. No. 3,482,749 to Cooper, 1968) and the tire-mounted bicycle carriers previously mentioned.
Securing the Bicycle
The patent art on vehicle mounted bicycle carriers discloses many methods for securing a bicycle to the carrier (see U.S. Patents referenced above). Methods involve a multiplicity of devices carrying such names as j-hooks, sliding frames, straps & buckles, bracket, channels, trays, yokes, troughs, simulated wheel axles, securing cables, clamping mechanisms, attaching devices, locking hasps, pivoting levers, etc. Some securing methods even require the disassembly of the bicycle. As a rule, these securing methods tend to be complex and expensive. A simple, versatile, and less expensive system is needed.